Greeting customers as “Mr.” or “Mrs.” — or even not using the pronoun “ze” or “zir” — could prove costly for New York City businesses under rules drafted by Mayor Bill de Blasio’s bureaucrats.

The Gotham mayor’s Commission on Human Rights says entities that fail to address customers by their preferred gender pronouns and titles are in violation of the law and could be subject to penalties of up to $250,000.

The commission issued a “legal enforcement guidance” for the New York City Human Rights Law, which now “requires employers and converted entities to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.”

The guidance, issued in December as part of a broader interpretation of the human rights law, notes that some people prefer pronouns that don’t have masculine or feminine forms, including “they/them/theirs or ze/hir.” The former are plurals being drafted for use in the singular, while the latter are among several alternative pronoun systems developed by academics and/or LGBT communities.

It lists several examples of violations that could result in fines, including the “intentional and repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title.”

“For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman ‘him’ or ‘Mr.’ after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses,” the guide says.

The maximum civil fine that the commission may impose upon “misgendering” is $125,000. But when the violation is the “result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct,” the maximum fine can double to $250,000.

The guide says businesses can avoid penalties “by creating a policy of asking everyone what their preferred gender pronoun is so that no individual is singled out for such questions and by updating their system to allow all individuals to self-identify their names and genders. They should not limit the options for identification to male and female only.”

While businesses are held to a strict standard, the guidance makes clear that the government is exempt from the law in “circumstances where certain federal, state, or local laws require otherwise (e.g., for the purposes of employment eligibility verification with the federal government).”

Writing at his Volokh Conspiracy blog, law professor Eugene Volokh questioned how the guidance is permissible under the First Amendment.

“So people can basically force us — on pain of massive legal liability — to say what they want us to say, whether or not we want to endorse the political message associated with the term, and whether or not we think it’s a lie,” Mr. Volokh wrote.

The guide comes at a flashpoint in the debate over the public’s responsibility to accommodate transgender people.

President Obama on Friday issued an order compelling public schools nationwide to regulate restrooms and locker rooms on the basis of gender identity, rather than biological sex.

North Carolina has been fighting legal and cultural headwinds for months after the state enacted a law regulating bathroom use on the basis of sex rather than gender identity.

This is not the first time Mr. de Blasio’s Human Rights Commission has raised eyebrows about the enforcement of city human rights law. The commission this month issued an order forcing bars to serve alcohol to pregnant women.

The mayor’s office could not be reached for comment Wednesday afternoon.

Seth Hoy, press secretary for the Commission, said the law is meant to address “situations in which individuals intentionally and repeatedly target transgender and gender-nonconforming people.”

“Accidentally misusing a transgender person’s preferred pronoun is not a violation of the law and will not result in a fine,” Mr. Hoy said. “The Commission issued this guidance last year so that employers and individuals understand what the law says and to ensure that every transgender individual in New York City is treated with the respect and dignity they deserve.”

" intentional and repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses " Yeah, continuing to call someone by a term they ... more

"Yeah, continuing to call someone by a term they have asked you not to use is rude." Indeed it is. And there are a lot of rude people out there. Just think of some of the drivers you have encountered ... more

...who make laws like this happen. Look at this thread, for example. People who have forgotten how to be polite, how to treat people with kindness and respect. We do not allow discrimination, even... more

"I have nothing to fear from a law like this." Who gets the fine money? The transgender or the offended/insulted person? I doubt it - it is probably destined to go right into NYC's pocket. Be careful ... more

I don't see stormtroopers hovering over conversations waiting to hear the inadvertent use of an incorrect pronoun. I see a recourse for the victim of intimidation. There are people, for example, who... more

... she is one nasty critter, along with Moron Joe and his idiot sidekick. If these people were "smart", they wouldn't be at the botton of the fake news tabloid food chain. Only you would think of... more

"I don't much care where the money goes" I do. If Blasio truly believed that the offended/insulted person (at this point I don't even know how to refer to them anymore because everyone has their... more

Let's say you meet me, and you confidently use the traditional male pronouns based on my appearance, and I take the time to say, "By the way, I'm transitioning to female, and I'm working on using... more

How you can go off on this idiotic bullshit is beyond my comprehension. One does not use gender-specific pronouns when meeting others. It is always "you". How are You. Nice to meet you. You are... more

"That is not, to me, a good enough reason to not have laws." I am not suggesting not to have laws. This discussion involves a very specific area of law, not laws in general. (You used the plural -... more

"That is not, to me, a good enough reason to not have laws." I am not suggesting not to have laws. This discussion involves a very specific area of law, not laws in general. (You used the plural -... more

we should agree to disagree. The law does make a distinction between those who accidentally used the wrong pronoun, and those who deliberately did it. That's intent. It's difficult to prove in court. ... more

...that I am not defending this particular law as it is written. I would need to see it, in its entirety, and review it. I fully understand your point about that. The law needs to be written such... more

"So maybe we can agree to kind of agree and somewhat disagree, but in all things remain pretty agreeable." Sounds agreeable to me. :) Don't get me wrong - I really don't care how someone wants to be... more

...assume you would be referred to as "ze" or "hir"? When people meet you, you likely seem to fit a particular traditional gender. So people would be likely to use those pronouns. That isn't the... more

I am responding to you because you took the time to respond to me, and I *do* appreciate that. But in all honesty, this particular topic is not all that important to me. I don't live in NYC, don't... more

There are a few dedicated disrupters on these boards who seem to take a perverse pleasure in causing as much of a problem as they can, but I appreciate a good conversation. From what you have posted... more

*If* he does, (and I stress that word if) I am not worried about it. Its kind of the sticks and stones thing for me (in a way) - the only weapon a poster here has when this is the only meeting ground ... more

... sanctimonious moral busybody who tells others what they "should" do and think, and who has a strange need to always be right. He starts out by attacking you and saying you are "overthinking".... more

Generically making "rudeness" illegal would be unworkable, but legislating against specific behavior is common. If a locality decides to legislate against a particular behavior, and that behavior... more

The Constitution's purpose was/is to limit the power of government. To say if it isn't Constitutionally a protected behavior, it is fair game to legislate, turns the Constitution on it's head, IMO.... more

Upon meeting someone for the first time, do you ask them "What is your preferred pronoun or title?" Ain't gon'na happen. Too snowflakey for me. And when do you ever refer to someone using a first- or ... more

"How do you know what to call people that you don't even know" There is the problem. How do you know what a total stranger prefers? Ask them to fill out a questionnaire? Maybe everyone should start... more

I don't care if someone believes there are 634 genders, or 937 or none at all. They are entitled to live in the world they wish. Here is one of the problems that can arise from all this ze, hir and... more

But then I'm fairly old too. ;^) We have a long history of passing laws against "Swearing in front of women and children", etc. They don't do much to either affect behavior or damage our freedoms. A... more

"But then I'm fairly old too. ;^)" I'm getting there . . . too fast! I think my kids believe I grew up with Fred Flintstone as a neighbor. I admit - we are too rude, too insensitive. If it were me... more